Westmore · UDRP DecisionIqostr.net
The Panel ordered transfer of <iqostr.net>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IQOS mark because it incorporated IQOS with the additional letters “tr.” The Respondent’s repair-service website prominently used IQOS marks and product images without adequately disclosing the lack of affiliation, defeating any claim to legitimate reseller or repair-service use under the Oki Data criteria. The same website presentation, the Respondent’s evident awareness of IQOS, and its offer to consider transfer for payment apparently exceeding out-of-pocket expenses supported bad-faith registration and use.
The timeline behind iqostr.net
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind iqostr.net — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates that a repair or maintenance provider cannot establish a legitimate interest merely because its services concern genuine branded products. Where the domain and website presentation imply official status and do not clearly disclose the lack of affiliation, the use may fall outside the Oki Data safe harbor and also support bad faith. Subsequent removal of the website did not cure the earlier conduct.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Domain Admin ContactID 6591670, FBS INC, Whoisprotection biz / Emin Abbasov, EMKA Aksesuar Ltd. Sti. Case No. D2019-2086 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa. The Respondent is Domain Admin ContactID 6591670, FBS INC, Whoisprotection biz, Turkey / Emin Abbasov, EMKA Aksesuar Ltd. Sti., Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <iqostr.net> is registered with FBS Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 28, 2019. On August 28, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 29, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 30, 2019. The Registrar also indicated that the language of the Registration Agreement was Turkish. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 29, 2019, inviting the Complainant to provide sufficient evidence of an agreement between the Parties for English to be the language of proceeding, a Complaint translated into Turkish, or a request for English to be the language of proceeding. The Complainant filed a request for English to be the language of proceeding on August 30, 2019. No comments were received from the Respondent on the language of proceeding. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 6, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 26, 2019. The Center received an email communication from the Respondent on September 24, 2019, but no formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties that it was proceeding to the panel appointment process. On October 1, 2019 and October 16, 2019, the Respondent sent further email communications to the Center. The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on October 2, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is part of the Philip Morris International Inc. group, which is a group of companies active in the field of tobacco and smoke-free products. The Complainant owns various word and figurative IQOS trademark registrations around the world, including in Turkey, where the Respondent appears to be located. According to the provided documents in the case, the Complainant is, inter alia , the registered owner of the International Trademark Registrations No. 1218246 (registered on July 10, 2014) covering trademark protection in many countries (including Turkey), inter alia , for products covered in classes 9, 11, and 34. The Complainant also owns and operates various domain names which incorporate the IQOS trademark, such as <iqos.com>. The Respondent is a company from Turkey. The disputed domain name was registered on January 14, 2019. The screenshots, as provided by the Complainant, show that the disputed domain name <iqostr.net> resolved to a website in the Turkish language, which was used for offering various kinds of repair and maintenance services with regard to IQOS smoke-free products ( cf. Annex 8 to the Complaint). On the website at the disputed domain name, the Respondent prominently used the IQOS word and figurative trademark as well as product images of the Complainant without publishing any visible disclaimer describing the relationship between the parties or the lack of relationship. At the time of the decision, the disputed domain name does no longer resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its IQOS trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is rather argued that the disputed domain name falsely suggests that there is some official or authorized link with the Complainant and the Respondent. Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant particularly argues that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant’s IQOS trademark, when registering the disputed domain name, particularly as the Respondent prominently used the Complainant’s word and figurative IQOS trademarks on the website linked to the disputed domain name and its product images without authorization and any disclosure of the missing relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. In its informal email communications to the Center on September 24, 2019 and on October 1, 2019, provided in English, the Respondent only indicated that it would have expected to be contacted by the Complainant prior to initiating these administrative proceedings. Also, the Respondent expressed that as an act of good faith, it has removed the website. Finally, the Respondent expressed its willingness to consider a voluntary transfer of the disputed domain name for a reasonable payment, which reflects “the real value of efforts, money, time and labor spent”. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceeding The Panel determines in accordance with the Complainant’s request and the Rules, paragraph 11(a), that the language of these administrative proceedings shall be English. Although the language of the registration agreement is Turkish, the Panel finds that it would be inappropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to conduct the proceedings in Turkish and request a Turkish translation of the Complaint while the Respondent has failed to raise any objection or even to respond to the Center’s communication about the language of the proceedings, even though communicated in Turkish and in English. The Panel notes that the Respondent was given the opportunity to respond in Turkish and that this opportunity remained unused by the Respondent. On the contrary, the Respondent sent its informal email to the Center on September 24, 2019, in fluent English language. Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent will not be prejudiced by a decision being rendered in English. 6.2. Substantive Issues According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd. , WIPO Case No. D2007-1228 . However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See, section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”). It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the mark IQOS by virtue of various trademark registrations, including trademark registrations covering protection in Turkey, where the Respondent appears to be located. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered IQOS trademark, as it fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. As stated at section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 , where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms or letters would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The mere addition of the letters “t” and “r” (which stands for “TR” as an abbreviation for “Turkey”) does, in view of the Panel, not serve to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s IQOS trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel further finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. While the burden of proof on this element remains with the complainant, previous UDRP panels have recognized that this would result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence in this regard is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd. , WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 . The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any evidence or make any convincing argument to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c). In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant’s trademark IQOS in a confusingly similar way within the disputed domain name. There is also no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. In the absence of a substantive response, the Respondent has particularly failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Panel is particularly convinced that the Respondent cannot be assessed as a legitimate repair service for the Complainant’s products in light of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc. , WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“ Oki Data ”) and thus is not entitled to use the disputed domain name accordingly . The criteria as set forth in Oki Data are apparently not fulfilled in the present case. The Panel particularly notes that the Respondent’s website which was linked to the disputed domain name until recently, did not adequately disclose the relationship, or rather the lack thereof, between the Respondent and the Complainant, thus creating the false impression that the Respondent might be an official and authorized repair service for the Complainant’s genuine products in Turkey. In view of the Panel, this takes the Respondent out of the Oki Data safe harbour for purposes of the second element. In addition, the Panel notes, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation or association, as stated in section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 . As a conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In the Panel’s view, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. It even appears that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name solely for the purpose of creating an association with the Complainant, in particular with its smoke-free products. After having reviewed the Complainant’s screenshots of the website linked to the disputed domain name, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name in order to generate traffic to its own website. The Panel notes that the Respondent has not published any visible disclaimer on the website linked to the disputed domain name to explain that there is no existing relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. Quite the opposite, the design of the website which was linked to the disputed domain name, the use of product images of the Complainant and the prominent use of the Complainant’s word and figurative IQOS trademark as well as the nature of the disputed domain name is, in view of the Panel, sufficient evidence that the Respondent intentionally tries to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s IQOS trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. In view of the Panel, the Respondent’s informal email of September 24, 2019, indicating that it is willing to transfer the disputed domain name only against a reasonable payment, which reflects “the real value of efforts, money, time and labor spent”, and hence, apparently exceeding out-of-pocket expenses, is another indication of the Respondent’s bad faith. The fact that the disputed domain name does currently not resolve to an active website does not change the Panel’s findings in this respect. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith and that the Complainant has also satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <iqostr.net> be transferred to the Complainant. Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: October 22, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around iqostr.net
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.